git_push

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: credential sourcing from VBSTUDIO_GIT_USERNAME/TOKEN and a guarantee that it never hangs on a hidden prompt. It omits whether force-push is possible or what happens on rejection/non-fast-forward.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the core action first and the operational caveat second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description covers the auth and hang behaviors well but leaves branch/remote semantics and failure modes unspecified. It is adequate but incomplete for the schema's gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% – repo is documented in the schema, but branch and remote are bare with no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about branch or remote semantics (e.g. defaults, whether remote defaults to origin), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Push to the repo's remote"), which an agent can distinguish from git_commit, git_pull, and git_clone. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or clarify its position in the git workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to push versus committing or pulling first, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a commit must exist), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow position from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.